User talk:SummerPhDv2.0/Archive4

Unreleased albums

I've been considering starting a WikiProject to clean up the "unreleased album" category (as I'm sure you well know, it's definitely going to take a group effort). If you might be interested, I've started trying to write it up here. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dear Jayne

An editor has nominated Dear Jayne, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Jayne and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobbi Starr

I´ve added a link to the Bobbi Starr article and you keep removing. WHY? You probably haven´t read what i was linking to and just deleted it because you felt like it. I dont have anything to do with the site, i linked to, i linked to it, because its good and relevant to the bobbi starrs article. Please refrain from deleting the link again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.181.129 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you are connected to that website is irrellevant. The link you added there (and similar links elsewhere), which you describe as "Her bondage and submission scenes described in details", is not encyclopedic. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chor Leoni Men's Choir

I have left my opinions regarding your speedy deletion tag on the article page itself. I note musical group notability criterion no. 9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The CBC Choral Competition is THE major national competition for amateur choirs in Canada. Chor Leoni has won 4 times and placed twice in the last twelve years of this biennial competition, ie. every time the choir has entered the competition. Surely the CBC's confirmation of at least one of those wins on the CBC's (not Chor Leoni's) website is sufficiently reliable. The choir has been reviewed and reported in the Vancouver Sun (the city's major) newspaper. Should I be quoting those as well as the 3rd party article which I referenced from the Vancouver Foundation (the city's major arts charity)- or will such behaviour result in another "spam" tag and threat of imminent deletion? For the record, the CBC, the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Foundation are not related to Chor Leoni in any way. Finally, (yes, finally), I note that other "notable men's choirs" seem immune from such qualifying standards. For example, "Victoria Scholars" continues to reside in the "notable men's choirs" list but Chor Leoni Men's Choir has been summarily removed from that list. Yet Victoria Scholars links only to an article page with NOT ONE reference and only one award mentioned. There are NO requests for references on that article and it is not "chastized" or threatened with speedy deletion. Can you understand my frustration and confusion? Vivo4 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for your frustration and confusion. We are (or at least should be) trying to correct the article -- not you or your article. This response is rather long, but you've raised a number of questions and I want to cover it all.

I did not see a clear assertion of notability, I saw an assertion that a prize was won that showed no signs of notability. If we didn't know the Grammies were notable, a link to their website wouldn't show us they were, a link to newspaper articles about them (or a link to a wikipedia article about them) would.

The CBC Choral Competition does not have an article. Perhaps it should.

The CBC's listing of its winners is a primary source -- the organization listing its winners. I tagged the article for primary sources because the notability of the prize is the basis for the choirs notability. Independant coverage of the awards -- such as a newspaper article about the awards -- would satisfy that concern.

The Vancouver Sun ref was not there when I tagged the article.[1]

The Vancouver Foundation is related to the choir, providing funding and managing their endowment. That their website covers them is not evidence of notability, though their coverage might be a good source for information.

I did not tag the article as spam as I did not see the article in that light at all. My concerns were reflective of the general nature of wikipedia. New articles tend to fall into several broad categories:

• "daughter" articles - "Discography of Jane Smith", "Culture of Westakistan" and such
• hoaxes - the subject never existed
• spam - Fred Banks is the greatest singer in the world and you should buy his album if it ever comes out.
• vandalism - an attack "article" about the kid who picked on the editor during recess.
• new, clearly notable topics - these are getting rarer: current events generate some, many of the rest tend to be historical or filling in gaps. I recently added an article about a smallish election riot in 18th century Philadelphia that changed the direction of the city and state's governance for the next 50 to 100 years. If it had happened in in 1995 the article would have been there years ago.
• new, not-so-clearly notable topics - the topic might be notable, but the documentation isn't presented to support it (lots of first efforts fall into this category)
• new, non-notable topics - these are distressingly common: someone's favorite gym teacher; a small, local custom that someone feels strongly about; someone in the news for a brief time (lots of murder victims and murderers); minor, local activities (school sports teams, community theaters, PTA chapters and, yes, lots of volunteer choirs).

In that last category, the local activities are commonly added by members of the organization or their supporters. They often have a conflict of interest: how notable is that achievment they worked so hard for? Can they be proud of the achievment while admitting it is "notable" to very few people? Over time, wikipedia has come to expect large numbers of these articles. So many, in fact, that not asserting notability is taken to mean the group is not notable and the article is axed. Later eveidence that the activity is notable allows for easy recreation of the article (through deletion review or simply starting anew).

The remaining problem is making sure the good-faith editors -- whether their topic was or was not truly notable -- don't get the wrong idea. Again, we are (or should be) trying to correct the article -- not you or your article. Yeah, we might need to guide new editors, as eventually happened here, or shut down persistent vandals, but the main thing should be the article.

• Incidentally, I did not remove the choir from the list, I removed its duplicate entry from the list. (Had the article been deleted, I would have removed it.) True, it fits under more than one category. I left it under male choirs and removed it under volunteer. It's a judgement call. We should probably reshuffle the list into mutually exclusive categories: "male, volunteer choirs", "female, volunteer choirs" and the like. Maybe someone will. Feel up to it? I'll help, but I'm not doing it alone any time soon.

Are there other choir articles that need work? You bet. Are there some that should probably be deleted? I'd be shocked if there weren't. It is constantly a work-in-progress, much like many other things: a teacher helping one student while others need help as well, a cop working on one case while others need work too, etc. If you'd like to work on that, feel free to dig in. The more minds and the broader the experience applied to the task the better. Ask around and you'll find others willing to help on a project they don't want to handle alone.

SummerPhD (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your full and thoughtful response to my comments, Summer (your nickname is far too long for me to type out each time :) THIS is what I needed to hear. I realize that most people who've been around the system more than 15 minutes don't have the energy, time or inclination to explain what appears to them to be obvious, so I do appreciate your efforts (and time). I grant you that if I'd devoted myself to weeks of reading of Wikipedia policy/guidelines/suggestions/topic pages etc. etc. etc. I might eventually have twigged to the extent of the issues and how I might correct them. But with every new tag added to the Chor Leoni article and what felt like the threat of its immediate permanent "extinction" I felt enormous pressure to act quickly. (That's another thing. I'll try to be kind here since you might have had a hand in drafting Wikipedia's boilerplate, but as a former lawyer, well, let's just say something really could be done to improve it. But I'll leave that until I'm older and wiser in things Wikipedian.)

I'd like to take you up on your offer to adopt me. I just don't know how to do that.  :) I know we might have had "issues" at the outset but I'm made of sterner stuff than that. Besides, I know you know your stuff, and with your assistance, I know I can and will make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I've been a user and admirer of reference texts all my life (I know, how boring) and hope to make my mark on this one. Who knows... there might even be some benefit in our association for you - some of my innate ability to spell might just rub off.  :)

With respect to the "list of choirs" and choir article pages, I'd love to help. I think the first problem as you suggest is in the structuring of the list. (That's another thing - I don't comprehend the distinction between lists and articles or how they are to be linked etc. But that aside.):

• I just don't see the utility of having "notable" anywhere as a designation in the "list of choirs". Presumably, if this is Wikipedia and the essence of an item's existence on Wikipedia is its notability, then notability should be a precursor for inclusion of any choir in any part of the list.
• How one sets a standard for the notability of a choir might be problematic, although personally I'd assume a minimum of one national or international choral competition win by the choir. But in any event, that standard should be spelled out at the beginning of the list, basically to warn off all those who assume they should include their choir there, just because.
• Given that professional choirs form a microscopic fraction of choirs in the world, the designation "volunteer" is superfluous. For example, there are essentially 3 professional choirs in Canada.
• Also the use of the word "volunteer" is probably not correct. It should read "amateur" as "volunteer" denotes unpaid work, whereas most choristers will tell you they sing for the love of singing.
• My designations would be "professional choirs, adult male choirs, adult female choirs, youth choirs (12-18 years of age), and children's choirs (under 12 years of age)". The adult choirs might be further broken down into "chamber choirs", "gospel and church choirs", "community choirs", and "university choirs" but then you might get more of the duplication you want to avoid. Such distinctions could easily be spelled out in any article or stub on each choir.

Simple, really. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivo4 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the utility of having "notable" anywhere as a designation in the "list of choirs". Presumably, if this is Wikipedia and the essence of an item's existence on Wikipedia is its notability, then notability should be a precursor for inclusion of any choir in any part of the list.

Absolutely! I'm a little dubious as to the purpose of/need for the list in the first place (but I'll make that argument over on the page itself). The designation of "notable" in just some of the category headings is entirely unnecessary. BTW, I'm one of the founders of ChoralNet (where I maintain the world's largest directory of choir websites), and Chor Leoni is indeed extremely notable, without a doubt! --DTinAZ (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Goldyn Chyld

• It wasn't a reference to your "nuts" in the sexual sense but to the British idiom "taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut", for an overzealous approach. But it was rather uncalled-for. Apologies for that. My reasons for thinking the album is notable i summarised on the talk page, along with articles which i think substantiate my claim. tomasz. 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tales for Bad Girls

This is the bands second major studio album, which was released today April 4th, 2008(In germany at least). Their first studio album was extremely successful internationally, they provide links on their site. The and does not get as much coverage as it should, All of this information can be found on their site, which is extremely easy to cite, on their record labels site( which is extremely difficult to cite due to the format of the site), and various online metal magazines(which are also quite difficult to cite). Even so, I highly doubt anyone could find a reason to dispute any of the information on the page. I'm not that good at referencing, being new, so I can't figure out ow to add the the reference list, but I can (and have been) adding links to the actual information, so if a reader finds something unclear or suspicious, he or she can go directly to the source and judge for themselves. User:Blooderayne —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read the notability guidelines for music... No you haven't, otherwise you'd realizes that a band(and therefore their album) is notable if they meat ANY of the requirements. Under Criteria for musicians or ensembles, article 5 states that a musician or ensemble is notable if the have released two or more albums on a major record label or one of the more important indies. Oh wait, maybe you can't count oh, dear. Forever slave has produced two major studio albums: 1. Alice's Inferno & 2. Tales for Bad Girls. Thats two, therefore it meets the notability requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooderayne (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wacken Records is clearly not a major record label. Ditto SPV. If either is "one of the more important indies" it is far from clear. The AfD discussion decided, with no evidence, that Wacken is Armageddon Music and that they put on the Wacken Open Air festival (which Armageddon, under the name Armageddon, does sponsor), though the festival is named for the town, not the later label at issue here. If you are arguing that they are signed to "one of the more important indies", you have a way to go yet. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Forever Slave

Okay, obviously I'm not quite clear on the guidelines. I'm not sure what will give an artist notability and all. And I plan to do some more research on the band when I have the time. What is needed for notability? Is this sufficient (honors for Alice's Inferno):
+ Album of the Month in Metal Hammer (Spain)
+ Top 9 - French Sales charts
+ Top 19 in Sales charts by Heavy Rock
+ Top 27 Sales charts in Tipo (Spain)
+ 2nd band revelation 2005 by Heavy Rock, Kerrang Magazines and MariskalRock.com
Thanks, Violaillyria (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Album of the Month in Metal Hammer (Spain)

Not a clear notability criteria, but I'd include it.

Top 9 - French Sales charts

This would establish notability for the album and the band.

Top 19 in Sales charts by Heavy Rock

Depending on whose chart this is, this would establish notability for both as well.

Top 27 Sales charts in Tipo (Spain)

Depending on whose chart this is, this would establish notability for both as well.

2nd band revelation 2005 by Heavy Rock, Kerrang Magazines and MariskalRock.com

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.

In any event, citing these items in the article would prevent deletion. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so I've checked around. Tipo and Heavy Rock are (online?) magazines from Spain. So, I don't know if they help with the notability thing. As for the French Sales Charts, the Forever Slave website says that their French distributor. It is said, "Our French distributor has published the top sales band of the year in France. Alice's Inferno is in TOP 9!!" But other than that, I can't find records online from the distributor (plus, the distributor's website is in French...).

I'm not sure about the band revelations either, I looked it up and found it [2]. The website's in Spanish, but can be translated to passable English. They won 2nd for what I'm guessing is "New Band" (translation says "disclosure" for revelacion). But it was won by readers' votes through rockreferendum 2005 which was published by the magazines Heavy Rock and Kerrang

maybe this will establish notability? well, it's worth a shot.Thanks, Violaillyria (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No

NO!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg5748 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP

See Diff Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Curious edit

You're right, it is strange... I do a lot of welcoming so it might be one of my edits... though I don't know how the user welcomed him/herself with my sig :S

A WM bug perhaps?-xC- 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Styles Of Beyond

Well, a lot of the info I get directly from one of the members of Styles Of Beyond themselves, so it's kinda hard to cite anything. Any ideas? Jay (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose there's good reasons for that, but it really leaves wikipedia lacking in available info... Thanks for the link anyway. Jay (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good reasons. Suppose you were writing about yourseld and wanted to, urm, "puff" a bit. Suddenly, you didn't merely sit in the nosebleed seats at a Paul McCartney concert, you provided uncredited guitar work on his last album. Or, scientific tests (that you can't cite) verify that the drug your company developed can prevent cancer. Or maybe the candidate you don't want to win the upcoming election did something truly unforgivable. Or... whatever. Heck, maybe you just misunderstood what you read or aren't remembering it quite right. Without citations, nothing could be done about it. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely understand that, it is a little frustrating though when you have info that's legit and important and you can't have it in the article. Then again, I suppose that's where SOBCentral comes in... Jay (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "The Truth" by Cherish

I have found numerous sources for the album release on CDUniverse and Amazon.com, as well as the group's website and myspace pages. It's coming May 13, so I will restore the info with the sources added. Tom Danson (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You around?

Mind taking a look at this page? --evrik ^(talk) 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! --evrik ^(talk) 14:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay, a DYK.

On 27 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philadelphia Lazaretto, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

		The Liberty Star
		Thanks for your help on Philadelphia Lazaretto --evrik (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't what I can add

I've looked at it. Does it have any relation to:

• Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia) [3], [4]

Location: 6th & Haines Sts., Philadelphia, Built on this site in 1838 by the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society as a meeting place for abolitionists, this hall was burned to the ground by anti-Black rioters three days after it was first opened. [5]

--evrik ^(talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but Pennsylvania Hall was burned during one of the earlier riots. See [6]. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Add Lombard Street Riot to Template talk:Did you know. --evrik ^(talk) 19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, and the geo coords. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia). - SummerPhD (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch

I had misread the timestamp for the last warning as this. My mistake. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Finished with my edits. I'll leave the sandbox now. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Recordings

Before you continue saying the page should have been deleted via PROD, please check the deletion log. It was deleted, but it was later contested, so the page was restored. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

SPC

SPC, K-Rino, Ganksta NIP are all notable. Please stop re-adding those tags-the articles do need to be improved. Instead try deleting some of the non-notable, bootleg compilations listed in the Dr. Dre discography. They are a burden upon wikipedia (anything released on Street Dance Records. )Cosprings (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am tagging the articles when I do not see a clear, supported assertion of notability. Telling me that you believe they are notable isn't helpful. Asserting and supporting their notability in the article is helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jane Seymour pic

What's with the "not fair usage" ? She's most famous for the playing a bond girl so I don't see any problems with that pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyn116 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NONFREE. Photos from copyrighted sources can only be used in very limited circumstances. For living people, it is generally assumed that a free-equivalent could be created. That is to say, if it is theoretically possible to take a picture of the person, we cannot use a copyrighted photo. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how am I suppose to fly to the United States of America to take a photo of a celebrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyn116 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to. However, it is assumed that someone could take a photo of a living person. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

speedy tags

when you see a bad speedy tag, just remove it with an explanation. You do not need to be an admin to do this. But if the article looks bad even though not a valid speedy, you can simply change the tag to a PROD instead of totally removing it. If anyone ever challenges you on the authority to do this, refer them to WP:CSD & ask me for help if needed. DGG (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Soccermeko?

If this is him, he's being smart enough to stay away from long talk-page posts. What do you think? Kww (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Could be, maybe not. I'm going to the pages as appropriate. Changes (Nicole Wray) looks to be a repost. I've put it up for a speedy on that basis. Otherwise, it's an un-sourced article on a non-notable album. The single is non-notable, so I've redirected it. We'll probably see a solid answer pretty quickly, so I'll wait. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't caught the repost possibility. That would clench it. I'll ask an admin to compare.Kww (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. It's gratifying when the system works. (He will, of course, be back.) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation errors

I would like to suggest that in the future when you encounter a citation error and the claim is doubtful (but not harmful) to article, use the {{fact}} tag, and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable amount of time. Removing the content tends to make people miss your point, which is apparently what happened on The Black Parade Is Dead!. See here for the specifics. – Zntrip 19:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is often a reasonable option. However, in the case of unreleased/future albums, I have found that there is far too much "churn" in the tracklist for that to be a workable solution. What tends to happen is a tracklist pops up, uncited. It's tagged {{cn}}, someone else comes along and moves a track or two, adds a track or two, changes some producers or guests and the tag is gone, or it stays up requesting a cite for a while, then comes down and immediately reappears in some other version. By killing the unsourced lists and alerting the editor who added the list with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} the idea that unsourced lists won't last gets across. Then, the list might come back with a cite to a fanpage or a blog and it comes down for a reliable source. Pretty soon we either have a tracklist from a reliable source or a clear understanding that there simply isn't one available. That's what happened on The Black Parade Is Dead! - SummerPhD (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Black Parade Is Dead! Tracklist

Hi, you added a warning to my talk page about there not being a source for The Black Parade Is Dead! tracklist, however, I did add one to my edit summary which I said was available here. My edit summary said "Adding track list from http://mychemicalromance.com/blackparadeisdead/images/mcr_tracklisting_btn_ovr.jpg" which the history page is here. I hope this might fix any confusion.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's better than nothing, I guess, but a citation would be better. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the previous citation with a more exact link but I only included a link in my edit summary because in the end most pages do not include a citation for a track listing. Yes, it's a future album so it is not released and I see that that is the issue but I figured having a link in my edit summary would suffice since citations aren't normally included in the end even for featured albums such as Dookie.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference, of course, is that Dookie has a tracklist that no one is challenging; it can be verified at amazon.com, bn.com or on one of the millions of copies of the album out there. A forthcoming album is a different matter: various "possible" tracks may have been discussed, misidentified prerelease bootlegs might be the source, etc. Without a cite, each new editor who stumbles upon a possible list (weather in Billboard or on some random fansite) assumes that their list is the right one and the tracklist starts flipping between various versions of varying quality with no way to sort out which is more recent and/or better sourced. That is why I tend to be pretty picky about requiring cites for tracklists on unreleased/upcoming albums. I don't care if you cite the tracklist for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band or not. I don't think there's likely to be any serious dispute. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Modernist

I think you sent a vandal warning to the wrong editor. You reverted an edit at Betsy Ross to the last version by Modernist. Cheers. freshacconcispeaktome 13:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• What edit are you talking about? Claypole - Claypoole? Seems correct according to several earlier versions.Modernist (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. My mistake on that one, for sure.[7][8] Sorry for the confusion Modernist, thanks for the headsup Freshacconci. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jordin Sparks (album

Has Jordin Sparks' album been released in the UK Stores ? Did it chart on the UK Album Chart ? Willl it be physically released ? - Thank You. MusicAngel16 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Jordan Sparks album has been released here, though it is not an official release, so like most new u.s based artists the album will have a an official release once the Double A side single of Tattoo/No Air Featuring Chris Brown is released in the summer. (JohnnyJohn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.138.245.4 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 May 2008

We Made It

It's a single that means it's notable--Freedom (song) (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Wikipedia:Music#Songs - SummerPhD (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back and in Attack (Milli Vanilli album)

Deleted AGAIN and salted. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hits That Shook the World

It's a copyvio of [9]. Speedy! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Piece of me certifications

Thanks for your message, I already add the sources I found. bye--89.7.161.51 (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I will explain you how to find the Piece of me certification in Demark and New Zeeland.

For Denmark certification you can see this song at #27 in the Tracklisten Top-40 Uge 19-2008 ( Main menu) in www.hitlisterne.dk

For New Zeland check last week chart in http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp ( Chart #1616 - Monday 12 May 2008 ) #39

If you can not find it, please let me know, bye--Albes29 (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't explain it to me here, make sure the cite makes it clear. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Stalking and Conflict

21:14, 28 December 2007 LBear08 (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎

12:38, 29 December 2007 L8ear08 (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎

"better to link to the actual blog itself so to avoid bias" - LBear08, 02:20, 30 December 2007[10]

"better to link to the actual blog itself so to avoid bias" - L8ear08, 12:06, 30 December 2007[11]

Coincidentally, two unrelated users, in the same time zone, who opened their accounts 12 hours apart, editing almost nothing but Michelle Rodriguez, using exactly the same wording in an edit summary, who both disappeared for most of February, reappeared in mid-March then disappeared again in mid-April happened to choose virtually identical user names. And when contacted about the "coincidence", neither one does anything that indicates they are at all concerned/surprised/confused. But me disagreeing with your edits (which are very similar to L8ear08's edits) is "stalking". Wow.

Until something shows otherwise, I am going to assume you are one and the same. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Question:What's with all the disemvoweling?? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to peacefully resolve an issue, however this user would prefer to do such petty things as disemvoweling my words to prevent having to be seen for the abusive stalker they are. It's unfortunate. Hopefully they will become more cooperative and peaceful. Doubtful though. LBear08 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the disemvoweling here. I'm also reverting your edits to Talk:Michelle Rodriguez/Archive1, including your repeated disruption and your disemvoweling. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The "disemvoweling" has got to stop, even on your own user talk page. It is acceptable to remove other people's comments on your user talk page, but it is not acceptable to edit them. Please see WP:UT for more information. Jaysweet (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the disemvoweled comments. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

Hello. Please be aware that this report was filed in regards to a conflict you are having with another editor. This does not necessarily mean you did anything wrong (although the disemvoweling has got to stop, seriously) but just an FYI in case you have anything to add. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm watching it. At the moment, it seems to be on track. I'll add to the discussion if there seems to be a need. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I gave you the heads-up as soon as I saw the report, but two minutes of investigation is already starting to show that the other user is most likely the problem here. I did not realize that the other user had been the first one to start with the disemvoweling. I think you're in the clear. Feel free to add anything you'd like, and happy wiki-ing! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction, the other editor did not start the disemvoweling. I did, though only here. The other user's actions are the edits to the archive talk page, edits here and, of course, at the spa's article. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, thanks for the honesty.

As far as resolving this conflict, would you consider agreeing to remove the conversation in question from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez? You were absolutely within your rights to revert the other user's attempts at deleting the conversation -- however, I do not see a pressing need for the record of that conversation to remain, and I think it might just be in everyone's best interests to blank the discussion and move on with our lives (it would still be in the edit history, of course). What do you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Decision? LBear08 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are active, yet completely unresponsive. It's been a week, time to decide, thanks. LBear08 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Initially, L8ear08 went to Talk:Michelle Rodriguez/Archive1 and removed some of hir portions of the conversation[12] and reworded others[13], then removed a prior warning about editing talk pages from hir talk page[14]. I reverted the edits to the archive.[15]

LBear08 then reverted that[16] and posted a message on hir own talk page addressed "Dear Stalker" and repeating the earlier claim that I am pretending to be an admin[17].

LBear08 took the issue to Wikipedia Talk:Vandalism asking if hir actions were OK or not (and again revisiting the charges that I am impersonating an admin, stalking, etc.).[18]

Hut 8.5 responded that the removal of portions of conversations from the archive was highly disruptive and not appropriate (and that I was not impersonating an admin).[19]

LBear08 didn't like that[20] then argued against it.[21]

I undid the removal again[22], reminded LBear08 of Hut 8.5's opinion, clarified policy on the matter, again stated that I am not impersonating an admin or stalking and suggested appropriate ways to address those charges.[23]

LBear08 again edited the talk archive, again said I was stalking, etc.[24][25]

I reverted the edits, citing policy and discussion.[26]

At some point Hut 8.5 undid LBear08's edits to the talk archive as well and LBear08 reverted that as well.[27] Twice.[28]

LBear08 doesn't care that the edits are highly disruptive, ze just wants them done.[29]

Then LBear08 takes it to another forum and comes up with the brand new idea: maybe I'll agree to simply remove the content.

So, after all of the Socks, repeated accusations and acting against guidelines and concensous, LBear08's "solution" is for me to simply do what ze wants because it's "easy"?

No. I will continue to follow guidelines. When LBear08 (or anyone else, including the completely unrelated L8ear08) goes against policy, guideline or concensous, I will undo their changes, warn them and, if needed, take them to task in the appropriate forum. Asking nicely and impatiently demanding an answer after demanding and being quite difficult does not give you a pass.

SummerPhD (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote: Then LBear08 takes it to another forum and comes up with the brand new idea: maybe I'll agree to simply remove the content. It was actually my idea to simply remove the content, as I didn't think it was all that valuable and I thought it would be the simplest way to resolve the conflict without creating further harm to the project. I did so keeping in mind that sanctions on Wikipedia are "preventative, not punitive" -- if our goal is to punish, I would never have suggested such a thing, but my goal is to prevent further conflict regardless of past wrongdoings.

That said, you are right that policy is 100% on your side, and if this is how you feel, there is nothing that can be done. I will inform LBear08 and hope he/she is willing to just drop it. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And right there User:SummerPhD just proved that he/she is a stalker. How long did it take you to compile such a long list of half-truths, nonsense, and biased garbage? Grow up and move on my friend. That means letting the sock spa be a mere figment of Wiki history long-since deleted. Your sockspa is baseless and honestly, uncalled-for lies. What does it do for you to remain up other than boost your Wiki-ego? Move on with your Wiki-life. Thanks. LBear08 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, me calling you a stalker (which you'd proven you are) and asking you to back off is an attack? You patronizing, snidely responding to, witch-hunting, and making false accusations against me is constantly is acceptable and guarded under Wiki policy? Time to get a reality check my friend. Back off. Thanks. LBear08 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Whadayasay?

Any chance I could talk you into acceding to have the old conflict between you and LBear08 deleted from the archives on Talk:Michelle Rodriguez? The record of the conversation would still exist in the edit history if it needed to be brought up at a later date, I don't think the discussion will necessarily be helpful for future editors to the article, and I think it would just save a lot of headache and drama if we just deleted it.

There is no policy-related reason to delete it, so if you say no, then that's your prerogative. But I'd really appreciate it if you would be the bigger party and say yes anyway, just so we can close that Wikiquette alert thread and get on with our lives. :D Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this.

Why don't you pretend I just do not exist. Why don't you let by gones be by gones, drop the hunt, drop the issues, whatever else. Just ignore my edits unless they OUTRIGHT BREAK WIKI RULES (not simply "disrupt" some vague Wiki policy). Seriously, let the sock spa lists go, let the past arguments go and we both move on. You clearly enjoy Wiki-editing. I enjoy maintaining accurate info for a few specific topics. No reason the two should conflict with each other. I've said it a million times before and I have no reason to lie to some random Wiki user, that user, those other IPs, and so on are not me. Just let it go. I will do the same. I have no issue with you or what you try to do here. How about we show some respect to each other by cleaning up this past pileup of wiki-dung and simply turning and walking away never to cross paths again? Peace can be achieved. LBear08 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Information for article "Definition of Real"

I understand entirely where you are coming from, but my edit was largely sourced. In fact, it was sourced by the same reference that was present beofe my edit (amazon.com). I merely formatted the tracks into a wikitable. I suppose the addition of Jamie Foxx and The-Dream as featured artists was a misstep, but both the length, featured artist, and producer of Bust It Baby, Pt. 2 are already known, via the article "Bust It Baby." If you find an edit disagreeable, simply correct it. If the disagreeable editors persists, I believe only then would a User message be necessary. That's simply my viewpoint, however. I appreciate the attempt to inform me of my error. -- Tri-Edge (talk) 04 June 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Yes, I was fairly unimpressed with the care package I received ;> Anyhow, I can't block for something that happened last night (see the blocking policy). Keep an eye on him though. Cheers, xenocidic (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sales

There are citations for the certifications e.g. Gold in Germany which is over 100,000 sales. That's why the sales were there so I don't see why you've removed them. Adi39 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Spirit (Leona Lewis album)#Sales. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs

Hi, I don't mind you removing citations that contain unrelated, irrelevant or un-reliable sources, & I know that you are not 'the enemy', you are just folwwoing rules laid down by Wikipedia, however, these rules suck! I came accross Urban Review (www.urbanreview.co.uk) (the site I references) along time ago, it has got really popular since & it always uses great sources to get relevant information. Although the layout of the site may be a blog format, it has become a music site now & I like to use them for info, that has never been wrong so far.

I see lots sites like Concrete Loop (www.concreteloop.com)cited for information, but this is technically a blog, it may be one of the biggest music sites in the world, but it remains in the blog format, any ideas why this is allowed?

Although I doubt this ruling will ever be changed, I would like to open this issue for discussion, how is the right way to do this? if you can let me know on my talk page would be really grateful.

Thanks Pulsetech (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If your goal is to alter wikipedia's guidelines for what represents a reliable source, take the issue to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. If you wish to establish that a particular source meets current guidelines, please take the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Either way, at present the site appartently does not meet current guidelines. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to change the world, I just want to voice an opinion & see if others agree. Thanks you for your help, it is appreciated.Pulsetech (talk)

"Sometimes When We Touch"

Just curious ... I've tried to add detail to the entry on the song "Sometimes When We Touch," and you've deleted it twice. Not upset, just curious as to why. I always like it when an entry includes a sentence or two of detail about the lyrics of the song, what they're about. And I'm not sure why you deleted that addition. Again, not complaining ... just asking.

~~Mike~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.21.42 (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summarized an interpretation of the lyric. It was unsourced. If the summary is from a reliable source, please cite it. If it is your own interpretation, it's WP:OR. While it is sometimes quite clear what a song is about, it is not uncommon for the obvious interpretation to be wrong. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK then ... not exactly sure how the first two lines of the song could be interpreted any other way. But I shall stand by your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.21.42 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation: "The song's lyrics tell the story of a man who is conflicted by the fact that he is engaged in a physical relationship with a woman he does not love, and he fears that he will hurt her if he confesses this truth to her."

The first two lines: "You ask me if I love you/And I choke on my reply/I'd rather hurt you honestly/Than mislead you with a lie"

No indication of a physical relationship. No indication it's with a woman. No indication he does not love her. Let's try an alternative interpretation:

"The song's lyrics tell the story of a man who is having trouble saying whether he loves his boyfriend or not. Unsure himself, he doesn't want to say, though this may hurt the other."

Given that both explanations fit the lyrics and numerous other interpretations are possible...

- SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Talk:Yulia Volkova

I'm well aware, but there's nothing wrong with providing more information on a talk page about a current topic, if the information isn't validated yet, in the hope that someone else may be able to validate it, as if it was verified to be true, it would be very informative to readers of the article. Elfguy (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rebel In You

Hi.

You say its not notable but it hasn't been released yet. How can you know it won't be notable?

Regards. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not notable: WP:MUSIC#SONGS, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article,....Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article;...."

I don't know whether or not it will be notable. No one does. If/when it becomes notable, give it an article.

Regards. SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Flush (Head song)

What have you done to the article Flush? It no longer appears to be there. dude527 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The song is not notable: Per WP:MUSIC#SONGS, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article,....Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article;...." The article has been redirected. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're Gonna Go Far, Kid

I read your reply on Talk:You're Gonna Go Far, Kid. If you don't mind, I had to un-redirect the page because KROQ just recently played this song, meaning that it could be a new single. Alex (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That it might be a single does not satisfy WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Missed deletion

Actually, the deletion log shows that I did delete the article, however, it seems that after a number of rearrangements over time, the article popped up again. A user added the tag about a month ago, linking to the already-closed AfD. That user so happens to be blocked indefinitely. I'll remove the tag. Thanks. Singularity 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanked pages.

Hello. I've noticed you've been blanking several music song articles and replacing them with redirects, like you did here and here, with edit summaries that read "redirecting non-notable song per WP:MUSIC#SONGS". Two things I have to say: first, these two songs are notable as they were released as singles by a notable music group, so it does pass "WP:MUSIC#Songs". Second, I think you should in any case nominate them for deletion rather than clearing them out without seeking for consensus. I'd like to also hear your opinion regarding this. Thanks Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} •

Albums by notable artists are notable by default. Singles by notable artists are songs, which usually "do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." - SummerPhD (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you replied. I actually think you're right at this point about the notability. I also noticed the tags. Think it might be a good idea to propose them for merge? Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} • 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I've tagged them for notability. I'll probably come back and redirect them again. If that's reverted, AfD with a suggested redirect. (I don't suggest merges when there is nothing sourced in the article.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I usually; I just didn't notice this was the case with these no-source articles. If ever you should do nominate them for AfD, I'd be welcome to participate in the discussion so please feel free to contact me (doubt that would be canvassing, right?) Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} • 00:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone would flag that as canvasing or not. But it seems a bit "off" to me. Feel free to add the article(s) to your watchlist though. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Christian distribution.png

About the map, I have just updated it with the correct statistics based on census data percentages of the countries. If there are any problems with specific countries or so, please tell me and I'll correct them. Thanks. Moshin (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My replies are at Talk:Christianity_by_country#Population_figures and Talk:Christianity_by_country#New_map. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hi, please take a look at Commencement (unofficial) and Deadsy Demo. I believe they are unreleased albums that should be deleted. Thanks for all your work.Cosprings (talk)

Clean up after yourself

I've noticed that you redirected a large number of Songs/Singles, however, you performed these redirects in non-standard fashion and broke a lot of the links that led to them. Standard practice is to merge relevant information into the album article and redirect the song to the album, since an article about the artist will usually be much too broad to include information about an individual single. Please take care in the future to make sure you redirect appropriately, merge any relevant information when redirecting, and ensure that you don't break existing navigation templates. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Flush song deletion

I have commented on the talk page. The song is indeed notable now, the conclusion last time was to re-create the article when the song was released and had more information, so I did. That was the consensus. Now we have more information, it's verifiable, and the song has been released, so the article is substantially different and very few of the same contents remain, and those that do, are now verified. Please reply on the talk page. dude527 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Burn Like a Candle

Good afternoon. How long will you give for that article until you intend to delete? MegX (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If the current prod stays in place, the article will be deleted 2008-07-14 at 13:37 or shortly after that. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bad Habit"

• Hi SummerPhD, I'm brazilian, sorry, but my english is not good, but, do you thing that "Bad Habit is a "bootleg single"?

Thanks OffsBlink (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it is not a single, a radio station plays it every now and then and someone who put out a bootleg used the name of the song as the name of their bootleg. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)